The California law requiring California Rotary Clubs to admit women members did not violate Rotary International's First Amendment rights of association.
Rotary International is a nonprofit organization with local Rotary Clubs. At the time of the case, Rotary's constitution and bylaws explicitly limited membership to men, though women were permitted to attend some activities.[3]
In September 1977, the Rotary Club of Duarte, California, admitted three women as active members. Rotary International's board of directors revoked the club's charter in 1978 and terminated its membership in the organization. The Duarte Club and two of its women members filed suit. They alleged that the revocation violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 51), which prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or physical disability in all "business establishments" within the state.[3]
A California Superior Court ruled in favor of Rotary International, finding that neither Rotary International nor the Duarte Club qualified as a "business establishment" under the Unruh Act. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal reversed and held that both Rotary International and the Duarte Club were business establishments.[4]
Rotary International appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal's ruling in a 7–0 decision on May 4, 1987. Justices Blackmun and O'Connor did not participate.[4]
Justice Powell, writing for the majority, held that applying the Unruh Act to require the admission of women into California Rotary Clubs did not violate the First Amendment. The Court relied on Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) and analyzed the claims under the freedoms of intimate association and expressive association.[3]
The Court found that Rotary Clubs did not foster the kind of personal, selective relationships protected by the First Amendment. On expressive association, the Court concluded that admitting women would not significantly impair these goals or force the organization to abandon its membership system.[3]
Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment without writing a separate opinion.[3]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
